Promoted Stories

Comments (2)

maybe kathleen kirby should be shaken by the neck all staffies should never be trusted ban them they are nowt but pit bulls

maybe kathleen kirby should be shaken by the neck all staffies should never be trusted ban them they are nowt but pit bullshemmi1

maybe kathleen kirby should be shaken by the neck all staffies should never be trusted ban them they are nowt but pit bulls

Score: 0

doofah says...8:54am Wed 20 Feb 13

@hemmi1 I agree with your statement about Kathleen Kirby, however to tarnish any particular dog breed with a poor reputation is ridiculous - they have traits, they are not programmed killing machines. In fact, no dog actually WANTS to fight. In my experience no dog should be trusted, in years of training and behaviourism I have been bitten by more poodles, terriers and pocket pooches than I have any of the bull terrier breeds. In fact I personally have never been bitten by a bull terrier, nor have I met anyone who was except for one irresponsible owner who was beating the dog before he handed her in - I'm sure he learnt his lesson. Dogs should be matched to owners, if you aren't a strong personality that can handle the stubborn traits of a the bull terrier / bulldog breeds then the dog will run riot, destroy your house, pee in your casserole and chew your couch cushions... In the event that something scares it, or it thinks something scares you or is a threat, in an attempt to protect you, it will throw itself into the path of danger - and stop it - if that means attacking it, then that's what they do. Show me a yorkshire terrier that wouldn't do the same in the same circumstances? Maybe the blame should remain with the owner, and powerful dogs should ALL be licensed, anything bigger than a cat. Maybe the answer is forcing owners who do not have licenses to undergo a theory test and simple practical obedience training to obtain a license... per dog. Funds from training could easily go to Dogs Trust to support the dogs they never put down. Maybe, as the court did in this case, the answer is to ensure the owner always has control, and if they don't, the dog is rendered harmless in its frenzy? All in all I'm glad to see the dog wasn't destroyed, sad to think that the owner is still uneducated and is resorting to a muzzle, and again outraged that the government isn't enforcing licensing (coupled with microchiping and theory tests) for EVERY powerful dog. Then, anyone failing the test for whatever breed of dog will be unable to obtain a license, and therefore, will have to rethink the size of dog they're getting. Rant over.

@hemmi1
I agree with your statement about Kathleen Kirby, however to tarnish any particular dog breed with a poor reputation is ridiculous - they have traits, they are not programmed killing machines. In fact, no dog actually WANTS to fight.
In my experience no dog should be trusted, in years of training and behaviourism I have been bitten by more poodles, terriers and pocket pooches than I have any of the bull terrier breeds. In fact I personally have never been bitten by a bull terrier, nor have I met anyone who was except for one irresponsible owner who was beating the dog before he handed her in - I'm sure he learnt his lesson.
Dogs should be matched to owners, if you aren't a strong personality that can handle the stubborn traits of a the bull terrier / bulldog breeds then the dog will run riot, destroy your house, pee in your casserole and chew your couch cushions... In the event that something scares it, or it thinks something scares you or is a threat, in an attempt to protect you, it will throw itself into the path of danger - and stop it - if that means attacking it, then that's what they do.
Show me a yorkshire terrier that wouldn't do the same in the same circumstances?
Maybe the blame should remain with the owner, and powerful dogs should ALL be licensed, anything bigger than a cat.
Maybe the answer is forcing owners who do not have licenses to undergo a theory test and simple practical obedience training to obtain a license... per dog. Funds from training could easily go to Dogs Trust to support the dogs they never put down.
Maybe, as the court did in this case, the answer is to ensure the owner always has control, and if they don't, the dog is rendered harmless in its frenzy?
All in all I'm glad to see the dog wasn't destroyed, sad to think that the owner is still uneducated and is resorting to a muzzle, and again outraged that the government isn't enforcing licensing (coupled with microchiping and theory tests) for EVERY powerful dog.
Then, anyone failing the test for whatever breed of dog will be unable to obtain a license, and therefore, will have to rethink the size of dog they're getting.
Rant over.doofah

@hemmi1 I agree with your statement about Kathleen Kirby, however to tarnish any particular dog breed with a poor reputation is ridiculous - they have traits, they are not programmed killing machines. In fact, no dog actually WANTS to fight. In my experience no dog should be trusted, in years of training and behaviourism I have been bitten by more poodles, terriers and pocket pooches than I have any of the bull terrier breeds. In fact I personally have never been bitten by a bull terrier, nor have I met anyone who was except for one irresponsible owner who was beating the dog before he handed her in - I'm sure he learnt his lesson. Dogs should be matched to owners, if you aren't a strong personality that can handle the stubborn traits of a the bull terrier / bulldog breeds then the dog will run riot, destroy your house, pee in your casserole and chew your couch cushions... In the event that something scares it, or it thinks something scares you or is a threat, in an attempt to protect you, it will throw itself into the path of danger - and stop it - if that means attacking it, then that's what they do. Show me a yorkshire terrier that wouldn't do the same in the same circumstances? Maybe the blame should remain with the owner, and powerful dogs should ALL be licensed, anything bigger than a cat. Maybe the answer is forcing owners who do not have licenses to undergo a theory test and simple practical obedience training to obtain a license... per dog. Funds from training could easily go to Dogs Trust to support the dogs they never put down. Maybe, as the court did in this case, the answer is to ensure the owner always has control, and if they don't, the dog is rendered harmless in its frenzy? All in all I'm glad to see the dog wasn't destroyed, sad to think that the owner is still uneducated and is resorting to a muzzle, and again outraged that the government isn't enforcing licensing (coupled with microchiping and theory tests) for EVERY powerful dog. Then, anyone failing the test for whatever breed of dog will be unable to obtain a license, and therefore, will have to rethink the size of dog they're getting. Rant over.

Ipsoregulated

This website and associated newspapers adhere to the Independent Press Standardards Organisations's Editors' Code of Practice. If you have a compaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then please contact the editor here. If you are dissatisfied with the response provided you can contact IPSO here